Rural Attitudes on Climate Change - Lessons from National and Midwest Polling and Focus Groups Emily Pechar Diamond, Robert Bonnie, and Elizabeth ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
NICHOLAS INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS Rural Attitudes on Climate Change Lessons from National and Midwest Polling and Focus Groups Emily Pechar Diamond, Robert Bonnie, and Elizabeth Rowe Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions nicholasinstitute.duke.edu
Rural Attitudes on Climate Change
Lessons from National and Midwest Polling
and Focus Groups
CONTENTS Executive Summary
Executive Summary 2 Following a nationwide report of rural attitudes
toward the environment and conservation
Introduction 3 published in February 2020, this report takes
Methodology 4 a closer look at attitudes about climate change
among rural voters. We draw on findings from
Findings 5 the national study and incorporate new research
Summary 19 with a regional focus on the upper Midwest.
References 20 Our study finds that:
• Climate change attitudes are polarized across
the urban/rural divide. Urban/suburban voters
were more supportive of climate action than
rural voters, even controlling for partisanship
and other demographics.
• Nationally, we found that rural voters were
less supportive of government oversight of
the environment than their urban/suburban
counterparts, even controlling for partisanship
and other demographics. Attitudes toward
government oversight were also highly
correlated with views on climate change among
both urban and rural voters (i.e., less support
for government oversight of the environment
was associated with less support for action on
climate).
• While many rural voters voiced concern
about climate change (and particularly
its disproportionate impact on rural
communities), they were generally reticent to
talk about it with their friends and neighbors
given the polarization and controversy
surrounding the issue. Additionally, climate
change ranked as less important than other
environmental protection priorities among
rural voters.
• Partisanship remains the strongest predictor of climate attitudes—in both urban/
suburban and rural communities, Democrats were more likely to think it is important for
the United States take action to reduce climate change than independents or Republicans.
Even perceptions of weather changes and vulnerability to climate impacts depended on
partisanship, with rural Republicans reporting experiencing less extreme weather changes
than rural Democrats.
Despite polarization on climate change among rural voters, there are policy solutions that draw
support from rural voters. We found:
• Several climate change policies received high levels of support from rural voters, including
policies that reduce pollution from powerplants, those that strengthen rural communities
against extreme weather events, and those that make vehicles more fuel efficient.
• Policies that incentivize the contribution that agriculture can make toward mitigation and
those that offered economic (as well as environmental) benefits to rural communities were
also popular. In fact, in the midwestern survey, rural voter support for taking action on
climate change jumped more than 20 percent when it was explicitly tied to also helping
farmers. This framing also substantially boosted support among rural Republicans.
Given polarization around climate change, communicating effectively with rural voters on the
topic is critical. Rural voters in this region continue to prefer moderate, practical messaging about
climate change, and were particularly motivated by messages emphasizing the impact of climate
change on weather and agriculture. In particular, messages that framed climate change policies
as a helping farmers continue to make a living and those that emphasized the need to protect
resources for farming communities and future generations were particularly convincing. We
also found evidence that such messages on climate change may increase perceived importance of
climate policies, particularly among rural women.
INTRODUCTION
The first half of 2019 was the wettest on record for the United States (Hensen 2019), and historic-
level flooding inundated 14 million people across the Midwest and South (Almukhtar et al.
2019). More than one million acres of farmland in the Midwest were flooded, creating significant
challenges for farmers and rural communities. While climate change has been tied to increases
in extreme weather events such as this (IPCC 2018), public opinion about climate change among
rural Americans in this region remains mixed.
Earlier this year, the Nicholas Institute issued a report, Understanding Rural Attitudes
Toward the Environment and Conservation in America, that used polling, focus groups, and
interviews with rural voters nationwide to analyze the urban/rural divide on the environment
and environmental policy. This follow-up report adds to that national study by taking a deeper
look at rural attitudes about climate change in particular. We draw on relevant findings about
climate change from the national study and supplement with additional climate-focused research
from polling and a focus group of rural voters in the upper Midwest conducted in December
2019. The upper Midwest is a particularly important region for understanding rural attitudes
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 3
toward climate change, both due to its recent experiences with extreme weather and its political
importance as a group of battleground states for the 2020 election. Our research in the Midwest
specifically focused on the relationship between climate change and agriculture to identify
specific paths forward on how to better engage farmers and rural Americans in a productive
conversation about climate change solutions.
Our findings show that rural Americans do feel differently about the urgency of addressing
climate change than their urban/suburban counterparts, even controlling for highly predictive
factors like partisanship. Rural Americans place less importance on the United States taking
action to address climate change than do urban/suburban Americans. Much of this opposition,
however, may stem from rural opposition to government regulations. Despite this, rural
voters voiced notable support for certain types of climate change policies, especially those that
strengthen rural communities, increase affordability of clean fuel, and provide incentives for
agriculture to contribute to climate change mitigation. Messaging about climate change that
focuses on moral responsibility to future generations, agricultural community prosperity and
natural climate solutions was also very convincing as frames for climate change action among
rural voters.
METHODOLOGY
The findings in this report come from two studies.1 The first study included interviews and
focus groups with rural voters and stakeholder leaders across the United States, followed by a
nationally representative telephone survey of urban and rural voters across the country. Through
the interviews and focus groups we spoke with over 100 rural voters from 2017–2019, with
representation from the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, Southeast, and Western states. The
national survey polled 1,611 voters across the country from August 6–15, 2019, including 1,005
from rural zip codes.2
In late 2019 we extended this data collection to focus specifically on climate change attitudes,
with data collected in the upper Midwest. This data captured perspectives of rural voters living
in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin through an online focus group
and telephone survey in late 2019. The online focus group included 18 voters residing in rural zip
codes, conducted from December 3–5, 2019. The survey polled 433 voters from rural zip codes
in these states from December 13–29, 2019. The survey data was weighted to reflect the relative
size of each state’s rural population and other demographics of the state populations to provide a
representative sample of rural communities in the Midwest. Demographic details of the Midwest
survey sample are shown in Figure 1.
1. Research conducted in partnership with Duke University, the University of Rhode Island, the University of Wyoming, Hart
Research Associates, and New Bridge Strategy.
2. For more details on data collected and analyzed from the national sample, see the full report: Bonnie, R., E. Pechar
Diamond, E. Rowe. 2020. Understanding Rural Attitudes Toward the Environment and Conservation in America. NI R 20-03.
Durham, NC: Duke University.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 4
Figure 1. Demographic Breakdown of Rural Midwest Climate Survey Respondents
FINDINGS
The primary takeaways from this research are three-fold. First, rural voters are concerned
about climate change but to a lesser degree than urban/suburban voters, and the extent of
that concern as well as perceptions of causes remain highly polarized. Despite this mix of
attitudes, there were several climate change policies that received high levels of support in these
communities, particularly policies that incentivize the contribution that agriculture can make
toward mitigation. However, consistent with our national study, skepticism of government
tended to dominate attitudes toward climate change policies. And finally, rural voters continue
to prefer moderate, practical messaging about climate change, and were particularly motivated
by messages emphasizing how climate policies can strengthen the economic and environmental
resiliency of rural communities. Below we detail key findings about rural climate change concern
and prioritization, opportunities for climate policy in rural communities, and the effectiveness of
different types of climate change messaging.
Climate Change Concern and Prioritization in Rural Communities
The majority of rural voters in both the national and midwestern samples were concerned
about climate change, but generally felt that addressing climate change was less important than
did Americans in urban and suburban areas. Like the American public as a whole, the level
of concern and prioritization of climate change among rural voters varied dramatically by
partisanship.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 5Majority of Rural Voters Concerned about Climate Change, but Concern Is Highly
Polarized
In general, rural voters were more divided about the importance of climate change action than
their urban and suburban counterparts. In our national survey, 54 percent of rural voters felt that
action on climate change was very or pretty important, while 44 percent felt it was less important.
Comparatively, 69 percent of urban/suburban voters felt climate action was important, with only
26 percent feeling that this was just somewhat or not important. Figure 2 shows higher levels of
support for climate action among urban and suburban voters than among rural voters in the
national sample.
Figure 2. Importance of U.S. Climate Action among Rural and Urban Voters (National
Survey)
In both the rural and urban/suburban samples, however, climate change attitudes were highly
polarized along party lines. While climate attitudes were more strongly correlated with
partisanship in the urban/suburban sample, there remained a significant difference in the
importance of climate action among Democrats, Republicans and Independents in both samples.
Figure 3 shows the partisan breakdown by rural and urban/suburban samples in the national
survey.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 6Figure 3. Importance of U.S. Climate Action among Rural and Urban Voters, by
Partisanship (National Survey)
Findings were similar for rural voters in the upper Midwest survey (which did not include urban/
suburban voters): a majority of midwestern rural voters (59 percent) felt that it was important
for the United States to take action to reduce climate change. However, this sentiment was
exceedingly polarized. Ninety-three percent of rural midwestern Democrats felt that it was
“pretty important” or “very important” for the U.S. to take action to reduce climate change,
compared with just 36 percent of rural midwestern Republicans. This partisan gap of 57 points
was higher than the nationwide partisan gap of rural voters (51 points), suggesting that the
partisan divide on climate change may be wider in the Midwest than in other rural communities
in America.
Attitudes toward climate change were also more polarized than attitudes toward environmental
and conservation issues in general. A majority (52 percent) of rural Republicans in the upper
Midwest survey said that environmental and conservation issues were important to them
personally, compared to only 36 percent of Republicans who felt that it was important for the
United States to take action on climate change (Figure 4). Notably, the percentage of Republicans
who felt that climate change action was important was 28-points lower than those who did not,
while the percentage of rural Republicans who felt that environmental and conservation issues
were important was four points higher than those who felt they were not important.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 7Figure 4. Rural Attitudes toward Climate Change and Environmental Conservation,
by Partisanship (Upper Midwest Survey)
Voter demographics also made a difference in rural attitudes toward climate change (Figure 5).
Support for climate change action was notably higher among younger rural midwestern voters
(78 percent of 18–34-year-olds, compared to 47 percent of 35–49-year-olds, thought climate
action was important), and slightly higher among women (62 percent) than men (55 percent).
Education levels also mattered, although the pattern was unexpected. Rural voters with some
college were least likely to think climate action was important (54 percent), rising slightly among
college graduates (60 percent) and those with a high school education or less (62 percent).
Figure 5. Percentage of Rural Voters Who Say It Is Important That the U.S. Take
Action on Climate Change, by Demographic Group (Upper Midwest Survey)
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 8Climate Change Ranked Lowest Among Environmental Priorities for Rural Voters
Among rural voters in the upper Midwest, addressing climate change ranked lowest in
importance compared to all other environmental issues posed to the participants. More
immediately visible priorities, such as ensuring clean water and clean air, were the most
important environmental issues. Environmental issues that directly impact rural communities,
such as protecting farmland, forests, and riverbeds were also a higher priority than addressing
climate change. Figure 6 shows the rankings of environmental issue priority among midwestern
rural voters, with climate change ranked as least important.
Figure 6. Importance of Environmental Issues to Rural Voters (Upper Midwest
Survey)
In the national survey, climate change fared slightly better among rural voters, although climate
action remained less important to rural voters than to urban and suburban voters. Only 21
percent of rural voters nationally chose climate change as one of their top two most important
environmental concerns, compared to 37 percent of urban and suburban voters.
Distrust of Government Taints Attitudes toward Climate Change
In the national study, we found a strong correlation between attitudes toward government
oversight of environmental issues and support for action on climate change, even controlling for
partisanship, ideology, and other demographics. This association was strong among both rural
and urban/suburban voters. Among rural voters in the national sample, every one-point increase
in preferred level of government oversight of environmental issues was significantly associated
with a seven percent increase in perceived importance of climate action (controlling for predictive
demographics including gender, age, education, partisanship, ideology, and agricultural
profession).
Consistent with these findings from the nationwide study, rural voters in the upper Midwest
focus group were skeptical of the federal government and its ability to effectively address climate
change. “For me, I naturally assume that nothing will come of it, so I am indifferent. Our
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 9government is broken,” wrote a participant from Michigan. Others felt that politicians were not
acting in the best interest of rural areas: “They care more about bigger cities where there are
more likely to be more people to vote,” wrote a participant from Illinois. Reflective of findings
in the nationwide report, participants were more supportive of policies that are determined and
implemented at the local level: “I’ve heard about policies on setting local emissions goals that are
reasonable for your community … I like those ideas because they break it down to a local level,”
wrote a participant from Illinois.
When it comes to government agencies implementing policies, rural focus group participants
trusted the USDA more than the EPA. Many participants felt that the EPA had overstepped its
boundaries with recent policies, but generally associated the USDA with support for farmers and
agricultural communities. Some participants opposed any type of government regulation, stating
that the federal government did not have a good track record in effective regulation. However,
most focus group participants felt that it was part of the government’s responsibility to support
small family farmers financially.
Rural Voters Feel Frustrated and Pessimistic about Climate Change
When focus group participants were asked
to describe their emotions associated with
climate change, negative emotions dominated.
Participants consistently felt worried and
concerned, and there was also a significant
amount of frustration toward the politicization
of the issue. They articulated a sense of loss
for animals, habitats, and way of life for
farmers; sadness and regret at not taking the
environment seriously; feeling overwhelmed
at the enormity of the issue and the amount of
damage to address; and concern about future
generations and uncertainty about what a
future under climate change looks like. The Figure 14: Words Associated with
figure to the right shows the most common Emotional Response to Climate
words associated with climate change in the Change
midwestern focus group.
(Upper Midwest Focus Group)
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 10Lack of Consensus on the Causes of Climate Change
In the focus groups, rural participants in the upper Midwest survey were easily able to identify
both local and global impacts of climate change, such as changing wildlife patterns, changing
weather patterns, melting glaciers, warmer oceans and extreme weather around the world.
However, only about half of participants said that they believe humans are driving climate
change—a significant contingent pointed to natural cycles of the earth as an explanation for the
climate change impacts. “Yes, I think the climate is changing, however, the climate constantly
goes through cycles of change, so I’m not sure it’s the dire situation that the media makes it out to
be,” wrote a participant from Michigan.
Half of the midwestern survey respondents reported belief that the climate is changing either
primarily due to human activity, or due to a mix of human activity and natural causes. This
means that 50 percent of the sample either believed that climate change is completely due to
natural causes (12 percent), that there is no evidence of climate change (20 percent) or was not
sure (18 percent). While this was highly partisan, there was no significant difference in attitudes
based on age or gender (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Perceptions of the Cause of Climate Change among Survey Respondents
(Upper Midwest Survey)
Perception of Climate-Related Impacts Highly Partisan
In the surveys, both attitudes toward climate change and partisanship seemed to influence how
rural voters perceived climate impacts in their area. Less than half (46 percent) of midwestern
rural voters felt that the effects of climate change have already begun or will begin within a few
years in their area. Of this, 71 percent were Democrats and 25 percent were Republicans. Figure
8 shows the distribution of how vulnerable to the effects of climate change rural voters in the
Midwest perceived themselves to be. Focus group participants, especially those identifying as
Republican, were also more likely to identify climate change impacts happening in other parts
of the world than in their own region: “I am not sure we are seeing much climate change around
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 11my area. But I have heard and seen pictures of how the ice is melting at a faster rate now,” wrote a
Republican participant from Indiana.
Figure 8. Perceptions of Vulnerability to the Effects of Climate Change among Rural
Voters (Upper Midwest Survey)
There was also a direct correlation between attitudes toward climate change and perceptions of
climate-related weather (droughts, floods, heavy rains, hotter summers) among midwestern rural
voters. Figure 9 shows how attitudes about climate change influenced perceptions of increased
severe weather. Seventy percent of rural midwestern voters who thought climate action was very
important perceived more severe weather than in the past, compared to only 23 percent of voters
who believed climate action was less/not important. Similarly, 54 percent of rural voters who
felt climate action was important also thought that summers are hotter than they used to be,
compared to just 12 percent of voters that believed climate action was less/not important.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 12Figure 9. Perceptions of Severe Weather among Rural Voters, by Importance of
Climate Action (Upper Midwest Survey)
Rural Communities Feel More Vulnerable to Climate Impacts than
Urban Communities
While perceptions of weather changes were Michigan. Many participants associated
highly partisan, focus group participants climate change with agricultural difficulties,
felt that rural areas were more vulnerable especially wetter springs and colder falls
to the effects of climate change than more reducing the ability of farmers to get crops
urban/suburban communities. “I feel like in the ground. However, others noted that
inhabitants of rural areas feel more attune “people in our area, as far as I know, don’t
to nature and consider themselves stewards spend much time thinking about climate
of the forests and waters. As we continue change. If we have changes in weather that
to feel the detrimental effects of climate are unusual, we just deal with it, try to made
change, although small at first, our way of the best of it,” (focus group participant from
life will be harmed,” wrote a participant from Illinois).
Opportunities for Climate Policy Support in Rural Communities
While attitudes toward climate change remain partisan, this study identified several
opportunities to build broad support for climate-related policies in rural areas. In particular,
policies that have both economic and environmental upsides and policies that incentivize and
invest in agricultural and rural solutions to climate change have potential to attract rural voters,
even those who have low levels of concern about climate change.
Broad Climate Policy Support among Midwest Rural Voters
Survey respondents in the Midwest reported a high level of support for a range of policies that
address climate change (but weren’t labeled as such). Figure 10 presents the levels of support for
various policies tested among rural midwestern voters. The broadest support went to policies
that directly incentivize farmers to protect the environment or strengthen rural capacities to
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 13manage climate change effects. However, “traditional” emissions-reduction climate change
policies received the highest percentage of rural voters who “strongly supported” them. Notably,
57 percent of rural midwestern voters strongly supported policies to reduce pollution from power
plants, 55 percent strongly supported an expansion of renewable energy, and 51 percent strongly
supported policies to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. This suggests that while rural voters
may be broadly attracted to policies that directly support rural communities, more traditional
climate change mitigation policies can garner significant support from rural voters. While these
traditional policies show substantial rural support, there are reasons that this support may be
less robust than it appears. In particular, if opponents of these traditional policies appeal to rural
voters’ skepticism of government oversight of environmental policy, we suspect these numbers
may soften.
Figure 10. Support for Climate-Related Policies among Rural Midwestern Voters
(Upper Midwest Survey)
Even so, evidence from the midwestern focus group expands on the motives behind rural support
for the more traditional types of climate mitigation policies. Reducing pollution from power
plants and factories appealed to rural voters because they felt that environmental regulations
should focus on wealthy companies. Participants generally felt that corporations were far too
likely to put profits over public safety. Participants also felt that expanding renewable energy
was a “no-brainer” policy—they believed that we are using up the (fossil-fuel) resources that we
currently have and need to invest in new, more sustainable solutions. Finally, policies to increase
the fuel-efficiency of vehicles appealed to rural voters’ preference for policies that help the
environment and their pocketbooks, with participants recognizing that these standards would
also help them save money at the gas pump.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 14Survey results also suggested that 25 percent of Midwest rural voters who did not believe that
climate change is a problem still strongly supported at least one of the tested policy solutions.
This signifies a notable opportunity to engage rural voters on climate change. Seventy-four
percent of these voters were Republican, and 44 percent said that there is no evidence that the
climate is changing, yet they still supported policies designed to mitigate the effects of climate
change. These voters were also more likely to say that it is very important for the government
to take action to help farmers, suggesting that climate policies directed at supporting farming
communities can garner the support of voters who are even skeptical of climate change.
Rural Voters Want Policies That Balance Economic and Environmental Protection
In the focus groups, participants preferred climate policies that both strengthened environmental
protection and created opportunities for economic growth. A participant from rural Indiana
noted that while renewable energy was becoming popular in rural areas, it was often driven by
economic opportunity as opposed to environmental concern. “I think for many it is a business
decision to install turbines, grow corn for ethanol, etc. … as an income producing necessity. Some
farmers I’ve spoken with talk about ethanol as a lower cost, and perhaps environmentally better,
fuel source but for others it has nothing to do with better energy or saving the planet. They just
want a market for their corn crops.”
Respondents also emphasized the need for policies to be implemented slowly so as not to disrupt
the economy. “I would support putting policies in place to improve our environment, however,
they can’t be expected to happen overnight, and they can’t be so restrictive to stop the economy,”
wrote a participant from Michigan. Others supported policies that primarily impacted large
businesses who have the biggest impact on emissions and can best afford the changes.
Concerns about rural flight and corporate farms eradicating small family farms was also a
major anxiety among rural midwestern voters. Policies, such as renewable energy subsidies, that
promote jobs in rural areas and create new income opportunities on family farms are likely to be
strongly supported by rural voters.
Agriculture-Focused and Incentive-Based Climate Policies Could Win Support of Key
Groups
While rural respondents were skeptical of regulation-based environmental policies, they
were much more likely to support policies that provided incentives for farmers to protect the
environment. Seventy percent of midwestern survey respondents preferred a policy when it was
framed as “providing financial incentives for the agriculture and forestry industries to expand
their use of technologies and practices that help address climate change,” instead of setting rules
requiring the use of such technologies and practices.
The recipient of government spending on climate change also mattered. When government
spending on climate change was framed as helping farmers address climate change, 84 percent
of rural midwestern respondents thought that this kind of government spending was worth it.
However, when farmers were not mentioned and voters were asked more generally whether it was
worth it for the government to spend money to address climate change, support dropped to 63
percent. This difference was particularly dramatic among Republicans. While only 39 percent of
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 15Republicans supported the government spending money to address climate change in general,
77 percent of rural Republicans supported the government spending money to help farmers
address climate change. Figure 11 shows how rural voter support varied based on the target of
government spending.
Figure 11. Percent of Rural Voters Agreeing That Government Spending on Climate
Change Is Worth It, Depending on Whether Farmers Were Mentioned (Upper Midwest
Survey)
Focus group participants also supported policies that might help families keep their farms
profitable. “I think farmers honestly want to try to do everything they can to help the
environment, but their funding is so limited and they work so hard they just don’t have the
means to do this, so a policy to assist in this would be wonderful,” wrote a participant from
Minnesota. This support for policies that help shore-up agriculture could be parlayed into climate
change policies such as incentives for farmland conservation, subsidies for renewable energy
installations, and increased vehicle fuel efficiency resulting in savings on gasoline. However, it
would be important to make sure the farmers are aware of such policies, “I also feel like many of
the programs in place aren’t communicated to farmers in a direct way that they can understand,
so I fear the changes would make no difference because they wouldn’t hear about them,” wrote a
respondent from Michigan.
Messaging on Climate Change for Rural Communities
We also tested a wide array of messages on climate change to understand what types of
communication frames resonate best with rural voters. Participants were strongly in favor of
moderate language and shied away from extreme views on either side of the climate change
debate. Messages that emphasize the benefit of climate policies for agricultural communities and
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 16future generations resonated with rural voters, reflecting rural voters’ strong values of place-
based identity, community, and stewardship of their land and resources.
Moderate, Pragmatic Climate Communication Most Effective for Rural Voters
Rural voters had strong negative reactions to both climate change activists and climate change
deniers. While most participants labeled people who say that climate change is a big problem
as “forward thinking,” climate activists were described as emotional, “off their rocker,” and
perceived as using climate change as a political tool. Meanwhile, climate change deniers were
described as uninformed, wrong, and ignorant. “To say there is no issue is just as bad as those
saying we are on the verge or environmental disaster,” wrote a participant from Illinois.
From a messaging perspective, rural voters preferred climate change messages that emphasized
honesty and recognized that there is no silver-bullet solution. They appreciated when messages
acknowledged that there are many different opinions on the issue, and broadened the appeal
to more than just climate change—specifically when how policies can support agriculture, the
economy, and rural life in general. Overall, participants were drawn to messages with a pragmatic
tone, implying incremental changes and improvements, without a complete overhaul or rapid,
dramatic changes. “While I personally know climate change is real and a problem, I know lots of
people who don’t believe that to be true. By addressing other issues along with climate change,
you will get much more support,” wrote a participant from Minnesota.
Agriculture-Focused Climate Messaging Resonates Strongly with Rural Voters
A clear winning tactic for climate change messaging among rural voters was relating the issue to
agriculture and opportunities for rural communities to flourish. “If it’s good for farmers, it’s good
for us!” wrote a focus group participant from Minnesota. Respondents particularly found the
following three messages to be persuasive reasons to have policies addressing climate change:
(1) Future Generations Frame: Eighty-one percent of rural midwestern voters found the
following message, that emphasizes the opportunity to use climate change policies to
support family farmers and promote economic vitality in rural communities, to be
convincing (including 74 percent of rural Republicans):
“If we help family farmers, they’ll be better able to pass their farms on to the next
generation. If we increase development of renewable energy in rural areas that will
mean more good-paying jobs in those areas. More financially secure farms, more and
better jobs, and a better quality of life with cleaner air and more flood readiness, will
encourage our kids and grandkids to stay in their communities and make a life.”
(2) Win-Win-Win Frame: Seventy-eight percent of rural midwestern voters felt that
the following message, which frames farmer prosperity, quality of rural life, and
addressing climate change as three goals that can coexist, was convincing. This
suggests that rural voters are drawn to positive messages about how policies can help
them maintain a high quality of life.
“We have an opportunity to do three things at once: help farmers continue to make a
living, improve the quality of life in rural communities, and reduce climate change.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 17Things like new farming practices, better flood management, and leasing some land
to produce wind energy will improve farmers’ finances, result in cleaner water, reduce
destruction from major storms, and reduce climate pollution. These are worth the
investment because they will ultimately benefit all of us.”
(3) Natural Climate Solutions Frame: Another powerful message focused on natural
climate solutions, specifically how conserving farmlands and forests can be an
effective way to combat climate change, provide clean water, and protect wildlife.
Offering farmers financial incentives to protect this open land was a popular way
to frame climate change policies (76 percent of rural midwestern voters found it
convincing, including 66 percent of Republicans).
“Scientists believe that one of the most effective tools to address climate change is
conserving farmlands and forests. Healthy farms and forests can remove pollution from
the air, thereby reducing the threat of climate change. Conserving farms and forests also
provides clean water and habitat for wildlife. We should provide financial incentives
and other assistance to help farmers and forest owners protect the environment.”
Climate Messaging May Be Most Effective among Rural Women
Finally, we measured whether presenting survey participants with all of the messages on climate
change had any noticeable effects on how important they felt the issue was for the United States
to address. The messaging resulted in a modest (but noticeable) strengthening of support for U.S.
climate action (Figure 12). While only 39 percent of rural survey respondents thought that it was
very important that the U.S. take action on climate change before the messaging, 47 percent of
respondents felt this strongly after receiving the various messages on climate change.
Figure 12. Change in Climate Attitudes after Messaging (Upper Midwest Survey)
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 18While the overall change among respondents from not or somewhat important to pretty or
very important was fairly modest (a 12-point shift), the effect of the messaging was significantly
stronger among certain demographic groups. In particular, women were much more likely to
shift their attitudes than were men, and non-college grads and voters with some college were
also susceptible to attitude changes after messaging. Importantly, Republican women showed
a 26-point shift in net importance of taking action on climate change (from not/somewhat
important to pretty/very important) after receiving the messages about climate change. Figure 13
highlights the notable shifts by demographic group.
Figure 13. Shift in Favor of Climate Policy after Messaging (Upper Midwest Survey)
SUMMARY
As one of the most polarizing issues in modern American politics, climate change continues
to create partisan cleavages in rural America. In this study, we used a focus groups and survey
of voters in rural communities in the upper Midwest to understand how rural voters feel about
climate change, climate policies, and messages designed to promote support for climate action.
We found that, while the partisan divide on the issue reflects that found in nationwide polls, there
are opportunities to engage rural Midwestern communities on climate change. Specifically, voters
respond well to messages and policies that emphasize how farmers and agricultural communities
can benefit from climate change policies such as incentivizing low-carbon practices and the
production of renewable energy on rural land.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 19REFERENCES
Almukhtar, S., B. Migliozzi, J.Schwartz, and J. Williams. 2019. “The Great Flood of 2019: A Complete
Picture of a Slow-Motion Disaster.” The New York Times. Accessed February 6, 2020. https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/11/us/midwest-flooding.html.
Hensen, B. 2019. “Wettest 12 Months in U.S. History.” Accessed March 1, 2020. https://www.
wunderground.com/cat6/Wettest-12-Months-US-History.
IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 oC. Accessed March 1, 2020. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 20Author Affiliations Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Emily Pechard Diamond, Assistant Professor, Policy Solutions
Department of Communication Studies and The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Department of Marine Affairs, The University of Solutions at Duke University is a nonpartisan
Rhode Island institute founded in 2005 to help decision
makers in government, the private sector,
Robert Bonnie, Executive in Residence, Nicholas
and the nonprofit community address critical
Institute for Environmenta Policy Solutions, Duke
environmental challenges. The Nicholas Institute
University
responds to the demand for high-quality and
Elizabeth Rowe, Master’s of Environmental timely data and acts as an “honest broker”
Management candidate, Nicholas School of the in policy debates by convening and fostering
Environment, Duke University open, ongoing dialogue between stakeholders
on all sides of the issues and providing policy-
Citation relevant analysis based on academic research. The
Pechar Diamond, E., R. Bonnie, and E. Rowe. Nicholas Institute’s leadership and staff leverage
“Rural Attitudes on Climate Change: Lessons from the broad expertise of Duke University as well
National and Midwest Polling and Focus Groups.” as public and private partners worldwide. Since
NI Report 20-06. Durham, NC: Duke University.. its inception, the Nicholas Institute has earned
a distinguished reputation for its innovative
Acknowledgements approach to developing multilateral, nonpartisan,
This work would not have been possible without and economically viable solutions to pressing
generous support from the William and Flora environmental challenges.
Hewlett Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation,
and the Rubenstein Fellows Academy at Duke
University. We also thank the Nicholas Institute’s
Catalyst Program for initial funding. Polling
and focus group research were provided by Hart
Research Associates and New Bridge Strategy.
Published by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental
Policy Solutions in 2020. All Rights Reserved.
Publication Number: NI R 20-06
Contact
Nicholas Institute
Duke University
P.O. Box 90335
Durham, NC 27708
1201 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
919.613.8709
nicholasinstitute@duke.edu
nicholasinstitute.duke.edu
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University | 21
Copyright © 2020 Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke UniversityYou can also read
